>Quote of the Day: Stupidity Strikes Twice

They say lightning never strikes twice in the same place. That’s not true. But people like to say it nevertheless. That’s not something anyone would say about stupidity, ever, because stupidity strikes the same places with such monotonous regularity.

….and none of those women are ever higher than a 6 in looks. Most are 4s or lower.

Coincidence? I think not.

We never, ever see women who would rate a 7 or higher making a big fuss about ‘rape’, claiming that rape is rampant, etc. EVEN THOUGH THEY WOULD BE THE ONES MORE AT RISK.

This fact reveals the rape industry to be a complete fabrication. A ploy to get attention.

Always ask yourself : Where are the women who are a 7+ in looks, who are sufficiently afraid of rape to bring it up as often as the uggos do?

I should note that in addition to the rest of the stupidity, he’s a little confused as to what the 1-in-4 statistic refers to. The study in question, by Mary Koss, found that 1-in-4 college-age women had been the victim of rape or attempted rape at some point in their lives. (1-in-8 had been raped.) For more on the study upon which this figure is based, take a look at this extremely useful piece on Alas, A Blog, which has a whole category on the site devoted to the study in question, and on the claims of various anti-feminists to have “rebutted” it. Daran of Feminist Critics, a regular commenter on this blog, has also written two very useful posts on the subject as well.

>"If the one in four (25% of college coeds are raped) statistic is correct, campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No felony, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20% or 25%, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in the U.S., was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assualts per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4%."As author Heather MacDonald notes there is a huge disparity between the point of view of "rape culture" researchers and the so-called 'victims' point of view. She also notes that this 1 in 4 lie has been repeated so often that it has become "proven beyond all reasonable doubt" in the minds of many activists. Phony rape research has created a phony campus rape epidemic

>hmmm. Just dropped in again, as I sometimes do, to see what became of this from the first post on this blog:"So in this blog I hope to take on the assorted myths promulgated by the Men's Rights Movement, to dismantle their rickety logic and their dubious statistics."I will drop back in again, from time to time, and offer this reminder of just how different your blog is from your promise of what it would be. All you have accomplished here, Davy, is a rather inventive twist on a flame war.Now remember you promised to go after DV and other stats? Has that proven to be too much of a challenge to you?Your opening statement was just a lie, Davy. But I do commend you on getting people to waste their time trying to get you to demonstrate some intellectual honesty. YOU ARE GOOD AT THAT!!

>"Always ask yourself : Where are the women who are a 7+ in looks, who are sufficiently afraid of rape to bring it up as often as the uggos do?I should note that in addition to the rest of the stupidity…"How is it stupid to think that the most attractive women should be the ones worried the most about rape and not the fuglies?Same thing goes for sexual harrassment.And do not bother with the "Your so sexist you think only pretty girls get raped" line of shit either.That fuglies CAN be raped does not mean they will be. You would have us believe that their are legions of guys out there who are actually willing to risk jail time just to get a lousy piece of ass that would cost them next to nothing to get consent for.Their IS a very sound explanation for why fuglies are the ones that complain about this stuff more than the pretty ones.A) Sexual validation: They think they can make themselves more desirable by making up a bunch of shit about being harrassed and taken advantage of all the time. "Let me tell you about the guys that I have to beat off with a stick. Don't you want me now?" B) Intimidation: Loudly bitching about rape/harrassment is also a THINLY VEILED THREAT that some fuglies aim at men. The message they are attempting to communicate is "Be nice to me or I just might decide to make up a bunch of shit and get you in trouble!"

>"Daran of Feminist Critics, a regular commenter on this blog, has also written two very useful posts on the subject as well."I've also written a response to Mac Donald's article.While not addressing the controversy per sethis post may be of interest to anyone on either side of the argument who takes the unfashionable stance that opinions ought to be informed by facts.Here's another good treatment of the topic. Sadly the site is now defunct.

>magdelyn (quoting Mac Donald):"If the one in four (25% of college coeds are raped) statistic is correct, campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No felony, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20% or 25%, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in the U.S., was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assualts per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4%."Mac Donald doesn't give a source for her Detroit figures by they are almost certainly reported crime. While most murders come to the attention of the police one way or another, the same is not true for other crimes. Many times more rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults occur that these figures indicate.It is also highly misleading to compare figures for a single year, to Koss' which covered her subjects entire lives from age fourteen — an average of 7.4 years. The annual victimisation rate (rape + attempted rape) found by Koss was 8.3%.That is to say that, according to Koss, 8.3% of a sample of women of the age most likely to be victimised, who are newly independent of their parents and therefore likely to be engaged in a lot of risky behaviour, are victimised. The rate for the entire population, incuding men, elderly women, and children, will have been much, much lower.Finally between the early eighties, when Koss conducted her study, and 2006, then national violent crime rate halfed.Taking all these factors into account, the apparently huge discrepancy between the figues that Mac Donald cites melts away."As author Heather MacDonald notes there is a huge disparity between the point of view of "rape culture" researchers and the so-called 'victims' point of view."Mac Donald fails to inform her readers that the researchers operationalised rape to match the legal definition according to Ohio State law. The researchers' "point of view" didn't come into it."She also notes that this 1 in 4 lie has been repeated so often that it has become "proven beyond all reasonable doubt" in the minds of many activists. Phony rape research has created a phony campus rape epidemic"Undoubtedly things that a repeated often enough become "proven beyond reasonable doubt" in the minds of some, but this has no bearing one way or the other upon whether the thing is actually true or not. Plenty of things that antifeminists repeat over and over again (such as the claim that Koss used her own arbitrary definition of rape) aren't true.My record on debunking demonstrable falsehoods (and challenging endlessly-repeated but unsupported claims) from both feminists and antifeminists speaks for itself. I am not unduly influenced one way or another by what is "repeated often enough". I find Koss' finding to stand up to scrutiny based upon the facts of the matter, not because it's "repeated often".

>Kelly McGillis, Selma Hayek, Nicole Kidman, Ashley Judd, Christina Ricci, Blythe Danner, Kimberly Wyatt, Paige Adams-Geller, Mariska Hargitay, Susan Lucci, Terri Hatcher, Calista Flockhart, Winona Ryder, Susan Sarandon, and Rosie Perez have all done anti-rape advocacy work. You can think what you want about the sex appeal of any of those women, but it would be pretty unreasonable to describe them as "uggos," like that matters anyway.

>Does it need saying to evilwhite-whatever that rape is about power and control (which is why women in burqas are raped as well as men, children and elderly) and as a woman on campus I can attest that I've known many women who've been raped or had an attempted rape and never went to the police (I'd say 1 in 3). Campus rape culture is alive and well you old middle aged trash. Even using your stupid rape theory then if a man cant get the beautiful woman then he forces himself on other women. MRA's are so sick. You wouldnt want that trash on a jury.

>Rape is about power and control?That's like saying that bank robbing is all about guns.Rape is a reproductive strategy that attempts to subvert sexual selection. Sexual selection is vital to the welfare of the genes contained within a female. Without the ability to demand either mates of high genetic fitness or material compensation for lower fitness genetic extinction is far more likely. (at least in an 'unsheltered' prehistoric environment)Females are genetically programmed to feel REAL bad if it happens to them because such a predisposition is a considerable aid in preventing it. (The same way that pain is a considerable aid in avoiding physical injury.)Of course modern contraception and abortion render rape a biologically meaningless gesture but a woman's limbic brain obviously can't know that.Funny how us sexist white dudes can actually understand women's needs better that they do.

>Dude, what is this complete horseshit?I'm a guy, and I'm pretty sure I'd feel REAL bad if I were raped. And that would have nothing to to with reproductive strategies or "'unsheltered' prehistoric environments," and everything to do with the fact that rape is a horrible violation.

>"it's biologically meaningless if somebody rapes you in the ass. "Your catching on."rape is a horrible violation"Never said it didn't suck. "nothing to to with reproductive strategies"Has EVERYTHING to do with reproductive strategies.Try cracking a biology text for a change instead of some post modernist feminist drivel.Learn something about the way life actually works. You can start here.

>"You base your worldview on a web page that plays MIDI music?"Can't be worse than a worldview based on feminist hijacked marxist ideology.Surely at least THIS much sunk in?"-current thinking about what causes rape is so bankrupt that it ignores the reality that by definition rape requires sexual arousal of the rapist."

>"-current thinking about what causes rape is so bankrupt that it ignores the reality that by definition rape requires sexual arousal of the rapist." That doesn't negate the current thinking about what causes rape at all, all it does is highlight the fact that a rapist is sexually aroused by power and control.

>Here we go again with the repeated assertion that rapists are motivated by power and control. Are the people claiming this speaking from experience? The only person who really knows what motivated a particular rape is the person who committed it, and his/her(yes, women can rape) explanation could be a lie or could be coached. So, unless someone can present some astounding evidence that rape is generally about power and control, it's pure speculation, unless that person is an actual rapist and describing his/her own motivations, in which case they are committing the fallacy of composition.

>Don't waste anyone's time with a source for which the full text is not freely available to the public unless you are willing to buy all of us a copy. That said, the bit of text within that butchered sample suggests that only SOME rapes are about power and control. What kind of numbskull takes that and proceeds to the conclusion that "rape is about power and control"?

>I addressed the piece of text that was there, you moron! Because I actually read it, I could see that big chunks had been removed because it was only a preview. The pieces of text available DO NOT support the conclusion that "rape is about power and control". Why would I waste my time debunking a source that doesn't even claim to support the conclusion?

>It's amazing to me that WOMEN are defining what rape is and what drives a small portion of deranged men to rape. As if they have any idea of what a male rapist could possibly be thinking/feeling. The whole concept is ridiculous. Women can't even get their heads around the idea that most men don't want sexually "experienced" women as wives, how in the hell can they understand the deviant male's mindset on rape, which is far more complex? Random Brother

>Ok, this is a bit retarded.For all Daran's excellent postings there are a few things to consider here about college rapes.A. A considerable amount of the numbers of rapes in her study were probably of the this type:1. Girl and guy both have drunken sex. In some states a drunken woman cannot give consent to sex and being drunk yourself is no defense. In some states it is a defense.2. Girl is drunk, but not unconscious. Guy is sober. She gives him a drunken "come hither" and he goes. Once again, rape in some states, not in others.I bet alot of the campus "rape epidemic" goes away if you exclude these two categories from the term "rape". How much this affects Koss's study, I don't pretend to know, but I'm sure there is an inflation of numbers based on it. Please remember that in both these cases the woman isn't unconscious and no one has spiked her drink, so I think it's certainly possible to argue this doesn't deserve to be called rape, esp when not all states agree that it does.What I think is a reasonable assertion is this: Rapes and sexual assaults on campus tend to happen to people who repeatedly engage in drunken sex with strangers at fraternities and sororities. Some of these women (and a few men) are repeat victims yet many don't think they are victims (based on the alchohol arguments above) and this partly explains why campus police and many sexual assault hotlines on compuses around this country often sit in dusty rooms bored out of their minds.In short, the problem is oversold, and is largely confined to a subclass of women and men. As for actual sexual predators -please remember they tend to repeatedly victimize people.Clarence

>Feminists hide behind the "it's all about power" shlock because they do not want to ADMIT that rape is really about sex. And they do not want to admit this because doing so would mean to acknowledge that sex is a COMMODITY that a rapist is trying to steal.Because if they acknowledge that much then they all but admit that the REAL reason they don't want to be raped is simply because they don't want men to steal that commodity.And if this much is clear then the REAL reason for their draconian date rape laws becomes obvious. To deprive men of ANY AND ALL sexual agency. Why? So they can make men pay more for sex.If left unchecked they will eventually broaden the definition of rape in such a way as to criminalize a man for doing anything more that lying on the floor like a dead fish with a boner while the girl goes up and down on him. And EVEN THEN he'd better be REAL good to her lest she decide (even years later) that it had been rape all along.

>I don't think rape is "all about power" either, but there are some serious problems with Thornhill's analysis from a scientific viewpoint, evilwhitemaleempire. http://www.genetic-inference.co.uk/blog/2009/07/evolutionary-psychology-and-genetics/Long story short, they looked at certain populations and found that rape was either not adaptive or actually *mal*adaptive. For some populations, they might have found an advantage for rape, but for others they didn't. It's not cut-and-dry either way.Again, this makes sense. Look at prison rape, for instance. Most of these guys were straight when they got put in, but do you really think they just turned gay when they got locked up? "Making somebody your bitch" in there, as the name implies, is an act of dominance, not just sex. I agree it's unreasonable to say that ALL rape is about power rather than sex, but it's a long stretch from there to say that ALL rape is necessarily about sex rather than power.

>MRAs hide behind the "[feminists want] to deprive men of ANY AND ALL sexual agency. Why? So they can make men pay more for sex" schlock because they do not want to ADMIT that it's MEN who want to deprive OTHER MEN (and ALL WOMEN) of any and all sexual agency because they want to ensure that it is THEIR (i.e., the men seeking to do the depriving) genes that are reproduced.It's only very recently that women have been viewed as the "actual victims" in rape situations, in the past, it was the woman's father or husband (whomever was her male "owner") who was considered as the "actual victim" and to whom recompense was owed. The woman's personal experience of the rape meant nothing, as sometimes the recompense owed to the father, if she was unmarried, was for the rapist to marry her. I'll bet THAT was a real treat for her!!Feminists are against the commodification of women and against the denial of women's agency in her own right as a human being in everything. Their "draconian date rape laws" aren't so that they can make men pay more for sex, as that would be reinforcing the commodification of women.

>If rape was as common as what lying feminists claim it to be, abortion would be happening one hell of a lot more than it does. Just like how feminists lie through their teeth about the 1 in 4 theory. That would mean that nearly 1 in 4 women are having abortions. ROFLHere are abortion stats to think abouthttp://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html#UC

>"Their "draconian date rape laws" aren't so that they can make men pay more for sex, as that would be reinforcing the commodification of women."Let me get this straight. -Commodification of sex is something that the patriarchy does. (check)-Feminists are against the patriarchy. (check)conclusion:-Feminists are against the commodification of sex.Well how about this one?-Selling pizza is something the patriarchy does. (check)-Feminists are against the patriarchy. (check)conclusion:-Feminists are against the selling of pizza.Oh man! Now I REALLY have a reason to hate them."I don't think rape is "all about power" either, but there are some serious problems with Thornhill's analysis from a scientific viewpoint, evilwhitemaleempire"But you do at least agree that bank robbers are not merely over enthusiastic gun owners right?

>most times a man's sperm is in a woman, it's highly likely to result into pregnancy.Not necessarily. Many women these days are on the pill, for instance, and if they get raped when on it they obviously won't get pregnant. There are more reasons besides that why getting pregnant isn't as easy as you say, but that's just one off the top of my head. But you do at least agree that bank robbers are not merely over enthusiastic gun owners right?Yeah, we're in agreement 'bout that. Problem is, I don't really think it's an accurate analogy between that and rape. I can't think of one bank robbery that had much to do with guns, but the whole thing with straight guys raping other guys in prison (and that's just one example) makes me think power has at least a little to do with rape, at least in some cases.

>"Feminists are against the commodification of women."But women commodify THEMSELVES all the time.And, inconveniently enough, a lot of feminists are also women. So the question for mangina's to ask themselves is "Am I motivated by pussy or wishful thinking?"

>Agreed, there ARE women who commodify themselves all the time. And, inconveniently enough, a lot of women are also NOT feminists.So then, the commodification of sex is no different than selling pizza.Sex is a commodityPizza is a commodityAs inflation rises, so does the monetary cost of commoditiesConclusion: As the monetary cost of pizza rises, so, too, does the monetary cost of sex.That brings your "draconian date rape law as reason for rising sex costs" hypothesis under question.

>"Conclusion: As the monetary cost of pizza rises, so, too, does the monetary cost of sex.That brings your "draconian date rape law as reason for rising sex costs" hypothesis under question."Inflation is not the only thing that raises costs. Monopolies and trade unions can also do this.Imagine, for example, what would happen to the cost of pizza if only Pizza Hut could legally sell it?

>"Inflation is not the only thing that raises costs. Monopolies and trade unions can also do this."Was just keeping it simple while toying with your syllogism (or should I say, "sillygism")"Imagine, for example, what would happen to the cost of pizza if only Pizza Hut could legally sell it?"Think I'd be more perturbed with being stuck with sucky pizza."Dude, if the "cost" of sex is too high for you, you could always fuck pizzas."Hey, now THERE'S an option you could look into! You should thank David for suggesting it!

>""-current thinking about what causes rape is so bankrupt that it ignores the reality that by definition rape requires sexual arousal of the rapist." "The definition of rape specifies forced penetration. It does not specify an object. The victims of the recent Bronx gang rape were raped with toilet plungers and baseball bats.

>"Dude, if the "cost" of sex is too high for you, you could always fuck pizzas."Not a bad idea. Western pizzas are a hell of a lot better than western women."Was just keeping it simple while toying with your syllogism"Well I'm afraid your keeping it too simple. And indeed it was a sillygism. Intended to make another point silly. "The definition of rape specifies forced penetration."Rape is SEX theft. (Power is an ancillary factor.) You feminists do not want to admit this. Because if true what does it make you?

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.